Bush/Rove WH: Now swiftboating their own

[beachmom]

It was inevitable, that when cornered, these goons will destroy anyone in their path who dares challenge them, even their own. I got this from centrist, Bull Moose, who you may not agree with on a lot of issues, but who comes up with interesting info on occasion. It's not that I have too much sympathy for these people, and the smears are only accusations of judicial activism (gasp), but in conservative circles it's pretty damning stuff, and they have NO evidence for it. It's just so unbelievably disgusting how far these people will go. Here's the scoop:

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/10/slime-machine.html

First they tried a rather pathetic line of attack - that their foes were Ivy League elitists. Then, Mr. Eddie Gillespie trotted out the politically correct accusation that the opponents were "sexist." Excuse me, Mr. Ed, this crowd is not exactly sensitive to that charge.

So now the Rovians are going negative on the nominees who were not selected. Note this exchange on Sunday's Fox News gabfest between Bill Kristol and White House Spokesman Brit Hume,

HUME: I can tell you this about Alice...
KRISTOL: ... for 15 years ...
HUME: Bill, I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very
closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of
evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not
pleased to find that. So that...
KRISTOL: So this is now the White House strategy. They're now going to trash
the conservative appellate judges in order to...
HUME: They're not trashing...
KRISTOL: ... defend Harriet Miers.
HUME: Bill, they're not trashing anybody.
KRISTOL: You just told me they found evidence of horrible activism in Alice
Batchelder's record.
HUME: I found that on my own, Bill. This was not something that the White
House is putting out or -- and they're not trashing anybody. They said
nothing about her when they named Harriet Miers.

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/10/slime-ii.html

"When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit’s first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House (unless of course he is simply reporting second hand reports—which would mean that he was engaging in rather loose reporting practices).

This tells us one more interesting thing -- that Fox News is indeed a true propaganda tool for the WH, NOT for even conservatives or rank and file Republicans. I mean even Coulter, Limbaugh, National Review, and the Weekly Standard have all abandoned the president on this nominee. But good old Fox is there to trumpet WH talking points to the end. There's a name for that, and that's fascism. No hyperbole on my part in this case.

Maybe all the victims of Rove can have a party together -- that'll be one hell of a party -- Kerry, McCain, Cleland, Ann Richards, conservative judges, probably the armed forces are next for losing the war . . .

[ginnyinWI]

1. crumble, crumble, crumble

Hear that wonderful sound of the GOP crumbling? Heehee.

[beachmom]

2. But see I think this thing is bigger than the GOP and the conservative

movement. This is about the Bush Dynasty. And I'm not a tin foil hat kind of gal, but they're basically saying, "No, WE'RE bigger than the GOP and the conservative movement, and you better do what we say, take our crumbs when we feel the need to give you a few, and if you don't we will destroy you". Andrew Sullivan, quite passionately on Bill Maher last week, said he had no sympathy for conservatives who feel betrayed by the Meiers nominee because all of the evidence of Bush's lack of principle was there by 2004. He said that conservatives who believe in those ideals should have supported Kerry in 2004, because it was obvious that Bush was against conservative values (i.e. limited government). Now before you guys get all upset, he wasn't saying Kerry was a conservative, he was saying that a calculation of a Republican Congress and a Kerry presidency and the inevitable compromises would have brought government spending down, and that Kerry would have been far more competent running the war in Iraq. I think these assumptions are correct.

I have heard no less than 2 times from CONSERVATIVES, * being referred to as the Manchurian Candidate. He only wants to protect the interests of his family and their friends. King George II. I find this more troubling than having a straight up conservative president. I mean, the poor and middle class are being totally screwed AND we have a huge deficit and less security. Talk about the worst of both worlds. (Which, by the way, I think it's an unfair stereotype and false that liberals grow deficits and are weak on defense, but I'm just going with the conservatives' worldview here for a second and showing how dismaying the * presidency really is to their cause).

[beachmom]

3. House of Bush, House of Saud -- frightening parallels

Okay, so I'm on a roll today.

The Saudi Royal family have only been able to stay in power by catering to the powerful, extremely conservative Mullahs in Saudi Arabia. The Mullahs get to do what they want in the cultural/religious realm, and the Saudis can control the political, economic, and foreign policy realm. Even after al Qaeda was formed and bin Laden was spouting his crazy ideology, the Saudis gave money to these causes and ignored it, because of the power structure there. Only after 9/11 and now the terror attacks in their own country do they realize that this "phenomenon" is a bit of a problem.

Bush (the senior) lost in '92, but Bush (the junior) worked with evangelicals and saw the opportunity to exploit their quest for power. He merged his ambitions with theirs (along with Rove's successful smear tactics in campaigns), and made it all the way to the White House. But, see, he thinks that as long as he caters to the Religious Right and Mullah Dobson that he can stay in power. But he forgot about the conservative movement that was born out of the Goldwater defeat of 1964. He also forgot that we live in a democracy where there is something called free speech. But his behavior shown over and over again is like a king who figures that as long as he keeps the Mullahs happy that all will turn out alright. Everyone else is expendable -- only the dynasty and the religious right matter. Not only is this not working anymore in Saudi Arabia, but unlike that country, we have a far more complex society full of individuals who think for themselves, thank you very much.

There is a lot of talk about reforming the Republican party, the conservatives' only solution they can think of. The Democrats continue to be dismissed by the media. Do you think they can take advantage of this schism, and if so, how, and with what ideas?

[ginnyinWI]

5. you're right

It is bigger than the GOP. Michael Moore pointed this out in F-9/11--how the Bush family is primarily a business family, and politics is just a way to facilitate business profits. And the more they try to run the country like a business, the more they will run it into the ground. Because you can't run a country like a business.

[fedupinBushcountry]

4. I saw Andrew Sullivan on Maher

Did he vote for Kerry? It sure sounded like he did. He was seeping in anger at Bush, and he showed no pity for those conservatives who voted for Bush.

[beachmom]

6. Yes, he did vote for Kerry

And he wrote a piece in the New Republic "John Kerry for President". It's not the kind of endorsement WE would like, but it's an endorsement nevertheless. At the time, most conservatives dismissed him because he's gay, and Bush's use of the GMA to win was pretty awful. But Sullivan said, no it's no just about the GMA. I think his reasons for endorsing Kerry were gay rights, fiscal discipline, incompetent running of the Iraq War, and the torture. As you see here, these were all anti-Bush reasons, but obviously he thought Kerry could do no worse. I wish we had more ABB conservative voters last year -- think about how much better the country would have been off by now, had he won. And weirdly enough, even conservatives would have had far less to fret over with a Kerry presidency. That's the irony I'm trying to communicate with this post. * is not only bad for liberal causes, he's bad for conservative causes, too.

[beachmom]

7. Uniting vs. Dividing

One more thing is that unlike *, Kerry knows what is important to conservatives, and although he disagrees with it, he is very respectful toward them, and in any compromise would choose the option that would help the most people.

Think back to that abortion question from the debates. Kerry said to that pro-life woman "I respect the way you feel". Do you realize that * didn't do the same on that issue or any other. He didn't say "I respect women who do feel strongly about their rights, but I see it differently". He NEVER shows respect to anyone who disagrees.

When people talk about polarization, I think of Clinton and his scandals, the impeachment hearings, and then after that, it's just Bush, Bush, Bush. HE is the reason for the polarization more than anything else. Yes, there will always be the right wing noise machine, but there's something about THIS president that just makes it all feel so horrible for a liberal, whereas a less partisan conservative could see how his or her views were at least being considered and respected in the Clinton WH. I miss the give and take, the compromises, the consensus building. It's just not there anymore, and I'm tired of people acting like it's the fault of "both sides". Yes, Kos and Moore and some others on the Left are polarizing figures, but they're not even close to being part of the Democratic establishment.

Had Kerry been elected, this nation could have started healing and coming to terms with our financial problems and this war. Now we have to wait another 3 1/2 years for that, and I mourn this lost opportunity.

[TayTay]

8. I agree. Plus Kerry was a Senator, and knew how the place worked

I think this is the time FOR a Senator to be elected PResident. I am tired of Governors with almost no foreign policy experience coming in and having to learn from scratch. Kerry knows more about foreign policy than just about anyone else in the Senate and he could find a way to work with the Foreign Relations lobby on the Hill.

Sigh! I wish more folks had listened to Sullivan. Now we have to go about it the hard way. At least with * disassembling before our very eyes, he can't really do anymore serious harm. (The House Rethugs though are still crazy and still powerful. They just might enact the Homes Mortgage deduction elimination.)

[ginnyinWI]

13. Kerry would have "hit the ground running"

right after the inauguration! We know he would have.

Did you see today's NBC poll? When asked about the mid-terms, people favor Democrats 48% and Republicans 39%! This is good news if these attitudes stick. And didn't I read somewhere that peoples' opinions are set up to a year before they vote in the mid-terms. Russert said on the news that this is the widest split they've seen in ten years.

[TayTay]

15. That goes back to the great bloodletting of '94.

That was an awful year. Clinton, a Governor, just couldn't do anything right in his first few months. He had TravelGate, FileGate, Don't Ask, Don't Tell-gate, Hillary's Health Care Commission-gate, Vince Foster's suicide, and so forth. He looked like a friggin amateur. The Rethugs smelled blood in the water and hammered Clinton, just hammered him. I still remember all the ads that had Dem Candidate X morphing into Clinton. It was awful.

The Dems were repteadly warned that this wold happen. They had grown fat and lazy off the pork and corruption in Congress. The Rethugs came in with the dissatisfaction with Clinton and with the corruption meme and just blew us away. (What 60 seats changed hands in the House or something. It was a friggin slaughter.)

I think the Dems smell blood in the water now. The Rethugs keep handing them issues that should give Dems a very good year in '06. Whether or not it will be enough for a historic turnover is yet to be seen, but it is possible. Especially with the Home Mortgage Deduction on the cutting room floor. A lot of middle class people got their houses and made payments on them in the first few years by counting on that offset coming in at tax time. This is a red-meat Dem issue. We could do, esp. if the Rethugs keep throwing us nice things like that.

[sandnsea]

10. Nonsense, give me 100 Sullivans

over 1 Kos any day of the week. Andrew knew what the stakes were and when he puts out an argument, it's coherent and makes sense. We might have won if everybody had been as strong an advocate as Sullivan was.

[sandnsea]

9. Aren't they swiftboating Harriet?

If Rove didn't want her, is that the reason the media is having a field day with her? We couldn't get a piece of information against Roberts into cable news. But Harriet has the lower numbers than Bork? Based on what? We know less abou ther than Roberts. How can people have such a bad opinion of someone we know NOTHING about? Rove is swiftboating her, that's how. And I am starting to find it a bit sexist, they'd never do this to a man.

[TayTay]

11. Tweety said that there is a civil war in the WH

Rove against Andy Card. (Another Masshole in the * WH. Sigh!) Card had the brilliant idea to get * to nominate Miers for SCOTUS. Card never went and vetted here with the Rethugs in the Senate or with the Rethug power groups. He just wanted to try and establish his power base in the WH for when KKKarl goes to the Big House.

Andy Card was a dipshit in MA and he's still a dipshit. That nomination is a dog and it's his fault. (And yes, I'm gloating a little.)

[sandnsea]

12. Yes It's their fight

But the fact that this nomination is all over the news and we couldn't get a peep out about Roberts pisses me off.

[TayTay]

14. We know there is a problem in the media

The Talking Heads shows had one meme on Roberts: How are the Dems gong to obstruct this one? The Dems, IMHO, couldn't get a decent word in on Roberts. The media annointed him a judicial saint and then constructed the idea that anyone who opposed him was a captive of the liberal activist groups. (Oh, and KKKarl and * were brilliant for boxing the Dems in this way. Sigh!)

[beachmom]

16. Okay, I think my head is about to explode.

You're telling me that different factions are going after other factions, and this is all within the WH? Wow, I had no clue. Perhaps, * is using another tactic dicators use (Hitler was famous for this): divide and conquer WITHIN his own administration (I suppose Defense vs. State in the first term fit this). Everybody thinks -- oh, well, the president is on MY side, and they all infight, and * just lets it all happen to prop up his own power.

Whatever the intrigue, we the American people are paying the ultimate price for this. Agree to Tay Tay -- I want a senator in the WH next time. I'm tired of governors who know little about the ways of the world and have to do on the job training.

[TayTay]

17. This is not planned, not at all.

The Rethugs have managed to take and keep power based on a very, very tightly controlled messaging system and a fear of the heirarchical power structure. The White House was run by Rove, for *, and he was a genuine bastard who would ruthlessly punish anyone who either didn't tow the line or who spoke out of turn. The Rethugs traditionally have had a top-down, corporate style of management that doesn't lend itself to a lot of free-wheeling dissent. The fact that the press is reporting on internal squabbling is a very, very bad sign for these guys. The lid is off the pot and all sorts of creepy-crawlies are escaping into the public eye. This is a really bad thing for them.

And I do want a Senator in office next time. We cannot afford another six months to bring a Governor up to speed on foreign policy. Iraq, for one, will not wait. A great argument in favor of Kerry running again is his foreign policy expertese; he knows most of the world's leaders and is conversant with them, the situations in their respective countries and how the US needs to interact with them. No learning curve that we can't afford anyway.